Skip to main content

Judith Miller is clearly a disgrace to journalism - I agree completely with Arianna Huffington, who shamed every member of the Media with her ownership of the NYTimes/Miller story, in this:

The Times articles are inconclusive about a lot of issues, but they are devastatingly conclusive about Miller as a journalist -- including, the confirmation that, within a few weeks of assuming the editorship of the Times, "in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues," and including the Times' long-delayed acknowledgement that 5 of the 6 articles in its WMD mea culpa "were written or co-written by Ms. Miller."

One thing we do know about Judy Miller is that she's no dummy. Whether or not Libby said the words "Valerie Plame," and whether or not Libby knew or revealed that Plame was covert, it's inconceivable that Miller did not know what was going on: a high-level administration official was trying to smear a critic of the administration. That's news. That's something the readers of the New York Times --and the American people -- deserved to know, and yet she did nothing with the information.

It is an embarrassment to the NYTimes and all of us who bothered to defend Miller's refusal to reveal her source on journalistic grounds. We are covered with egg today.

But the rest of the Media has also disgraced itself on this story. The DC Media establishment is covered in hypocrisy and disgrace:

THE LYING OFFENDS THEM. For both politicians and journalists, trust is the coin of the realm. Without trust, the system breaks down.

"We have our own set of village rules," says David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, who worked for both the Reagan and Clinton White House. "Sex did not violate those rules. The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them. That is one on which people choke.

. . . "[S]ays Chris Matthews, who once was a top aide to the late Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill . . .  "[t]here has to be a functional trust by reporters of the person they're covering. Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply being constantly lied to."

. . . "His behavior," says Lieberman, "is so over the edge. What is troubling is the deceit, the failure to own up to it. Before this is over the truth must be told."

. . . "The judgment is harsher in Washington," says The Post's Broder. "We don't like being lied to."


On the flip I want to take a closer look at 4 other journalists (other than Miller and Cooper, of course Novak was also involved but he has not been a journalist for a long time) who KNEW the Bush Administration was lying -- Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Andrea Mitchell of NBC; and the one honorable and professional journalist to emerge from this disgrace -- Walter Pincus of the Washington Post. Pincus was the one journalist who called the liars liars.

The lying by the Bush Administration, including by Bush himself, were known immediately by 6 reporters -- Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and Walter Pincus. Here was the lie:

Q: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

    THE PRESIDENT: That's up to -

    Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

There was nothing ambiguous about the White House lie:

Q: All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: . . . I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --. . .

Q . . . I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

What did Tim Russert do to report this blatant lying by the Bush Administration? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He lied to his audience and pretended he didn't know the truth.

Here's how Richard Schmitt reported it in the Los Angeles Times:

    SCHMITT (8/10/04): NBC issued a statement saying the network made Russert available under an agreement where he was not required to appear before the grand jury and was not asked questions that would have required him "to disclose information provided to him in confidence."

    "Mr. Russert told the special prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative, and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby," the NBC statement said.

    "Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month."

Did Tim Russert report any of this to his audience? Why no. Not ever. A disgrace. But Tim Russert has never been a true journalist. He is a political hack whose connections landed him a spot at NBC and then the Meet the Press gig that he has, to be fair, turned into the must see spot on Sunday talk.

Because Russert has always been a political animal, it is hardly surprising that he felt no obligation to his audience. As Somerby says, he plays us for rubes every Sunday. And his lying to his audience about what he knew about Plamegate is par for the course.

Chris Matthews, a/k/a Tweety, is another political animal turned pundit who has no claim to journalism. He also lied to his audience about what he knew about the BushCo lying on Plamegate:

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

Chris Matthews lied to his audience by pretending he did not know this. He let BushCo lie and enjoyed it. After his sanctimony about Clinton's sex lies, what more do we need to know about the disgrace that is Tweety.

Andrea Mitchell actually is a veteran television reporter, but she has this little conflict problem, she is married to Alan Greenspan. But she knew BushCo was lying and said nothing. Except pretend she was not involved.

Now finally, let's review the work of a real journalist -- one who respects his profession - Walter Pincus:

After he went public in 2003 about the trip, senior Bush administration officials, trying to discredit Wilson's findings, told reporters that Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA, was the one who suggested the Niger mission for her husband. Days later, Plame was named as an "agency operative" by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has said he did not realize he was, in effect, exposing a covert officer. A Senate committee report would later say evidence indicated Plame suggested Wilson for the trip.

There. A plain declarative statement. "Senior Bush Administration officials, trying to discredit Wilson's findings, told reporters that Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA, was the one who suggested the Niger mission for her husband." BushCo lied.

Here's more--

Senior Bush administration officials told a different story about the trip's origin in the days between July 8 and July 12, 2003. They said that Wilson's wife was working at the CIA dealing with weapons of mass destruction and that she suggested him for the Niger trip, according to three reporters.

Here's more --

This Washington Post reporter spoke the next day to an administration official, who talked on the condition of anonymity, and was told in substance "that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction," as reported in an Oct. 14 article.

Want more reporting by a reporter? this:

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The June 10 memo is critical to this story of course. It demonstrates that the Wilson attack was coordinated prior to Wilson's July 6 op-ed, as Judith Miller's testimony now makes clear.

As demonstrated today on Political hack George Stephanopolous's show, those folks who have no respect for journalism will now attack Fitzgerald and defend their other DC hack friends. Remember these people, and the dishonor and disgrace they do to the profession of journalism.

It is not just Judith Miller. It is the whole DC Cocktail Party Circuit establishment. These are the same people that gave BushCo a pass in lying to the country in order to force the Iraq Debacle down our throats.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:05 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So was she in bed with the neocons or not? (4.00)
    Figuratively and, perhaps, literally...
    •  Gee, thanks Bob (4.00)
      I needed that picture in my head.
      •  How about sharing a bed... (4.00)
        in a federal penitentiary.

        Obstructing justice and perjury are still crimes, right?

        The Only Constant is Change

        by proudprogressiveCA on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:21:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  agreed but...why did Millers Lawyer (none)
          go on a show this morning and say "Judy is just a witness" in the case? Is she really free and clear of any indictments. I want her tried, convicted and tossed in Jail for coverup and conspiracy. I also wish Fitzie could nail some of the other "Reporters" you write about. And what's with Judy not knowing who Libby was at the Rodeo? Is anything that comes out of her mouth to be believed. I hope she picks up littered highways for the rest of her life along with being hit on by Mama Matron.

          *This site is slower than Bush's reaction on 9/11.*

          by Chamonix on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:28:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  she is not free and clear (none)
            as I'm sure Bennett knows very well. I see a number of potential charges against her.

            Remember, Fitz said much the same thing to Rove's attorney after his third grand jury appearance...

            "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- Bush on Oct 7, 2003

            by QuickSilver on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Because she made a deal? (none)
            The lawyers could be mistaken, or lying. But I think it's more likely that they actually made a deal with Fitzgerald: An assurance that she won't be prosecuted, in return for her testimony against Libby (and perhaps others).

            This ties in to the thoery that she went to jail to protect herself, not her source. Once her lawyers had negotiated immunity, she could testify.

        •  This was all too clear, all along. (none)
          The fact that she went to jail simply did not compute. Here's a link to a diary I wrote back in July, dealing with the story St. Judy the Obscure should have filed back in 2003, when she was asked to help out Valerie Plame.
          The fact that she didn't write this story condemns her, and the fact that people were taken in by her and the editors at the NYTimes is laughable.

          "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

          by SteinL on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:29:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So, Miller, De Lay, Rove and Libby were all in (none)
          adjacent cells in the federal penitentiary.  Miller said . . . .

          Fill in the punch line here--I know you're up to the challenge!

          •  Obvious (4.00)
            "The roots of aspens really do intertwine, don't they?"

            Le peuple en ce jour sans cesse repète: Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira!

            by MoDem on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:05:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You Know, That Cryptic 'Aspen' Reference (4.00)
              Becomes less obscure when you remember that Joodles lived with Les Aspin when he was a Congresscritter in the early 1980s, and her articles were full of his pithy wisdom with regards to national security matters.  I would guess this is some veiled reference to something Scooter knows that would cause Miller a great deal of personal or professional embarassment, at the very least, perhaps even open her to additional criminal charges.  

              See this New York article from June of 2004 for details.

              "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

              "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

              by JJB on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:59:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  "When did Miller fall out of Bed?" (none)
          a great read: analysis in article by William Jackson at CommonD reams. He asks the question: "When did Miller fall out of Bed"

          I cited it in another comment but it covers this topic on disgraceful reporting very well.

          These reporters and pundits lost my trust during their reporting on Clinton's Whitewater/Monica investigations. Real suckers for whatever mites are in play.

          Let's stop feeding greed. In fact, propose we make it a commandment: The greedy shall not be fed.

          by idredit on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:04:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Targets of WH leaks no accident (none)
        I think we can surmise that it is no accident that the WH leakers (Rove, Libby, et al.) largely targeted Washington pundits and not reporters, properly anticipating that they would protect their own skins rather than the public's right to know they were being lied to.

        They apparently only tripped up because one of them called Walter Pincus, who did his job.

        Pincus and fellow WP reporter Jim Vandehei have been the most dogged reporters on this story, and unlike the NY Times management, the Post editors have let them run with it.

      •  You bet she's in bed with the neocons. (none)
        Some wingnuts are trying to defend her by claiming that she's a CIA "asset".  Nope -- the CIA wouldn't want her.

        She's BushCo/PNAC zampolit:  A political officer assigned to spread the BushCo propaganda.

      •  I recall some reports (none)
        that she was sleeping with the soldier in charge of her embedded unit in Iraq and also reports that she has had affairs with other sources.  If this isn't the ultimate breach of journalistic ethics-if true-I don't know what is.

        "My job is to protect the American people." George W. Bush. Did he?

        by PAprogressive on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:42:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I have posted before (4.00)
      but I would like to post it again. What I learned about Judith Miller are these:

      • She is a mole planted inside New York Times.

      • She has worked and still works for Neo-Cons,

      • She is more dangerous and more nefarious than Jack Abramoff type of thugs especially because of her position, her job as a supposedly "independent journalist" and the prestige of the institution named New York Times.

      • Her allegiance lies to Neo-Cons naturally, not to NYT or to any code of ethics for the journalists. She has lied through her teeth to serve and protect her Masters.

      • She should not be allowed to resign from NYT, she should be summarily fired from her job with the following note: "Mrs. Judith Miller has been fired from her job for doing the greatest disservice to her profession as a journalist, for lying to the public, for being deceitful to her employer and for endangering the security and well-being of her fellow citizens and for being an accomlice to a crime of aggression towards a sovereign country and facilitating a mass-murder of innocent citizens."

      • She should be barred from working in any News organization as a journalist.

      • She should be allowed to join Fox News Television as a Political Analyst.
      •  She wasn't always like that (none)
        That's the crazy part of this.

        "Miller, aka "The Queen of All Iraq" was a fine and respected if abrasive and nettlesome NYT chief in Cairo.  Her knowledge of the Middle East is good; even Professor Cole and Robert Fisk give Judy some begrudging respect.

        But Judy got tangled up with neos, and it goes downhill from there.  The process began after 9/11.

        Now Judy is likely a perjurer, and maybe an accessory to the leak.  

        The Mighty Wurlizter® is cranking out the noise that Fitzgerald is out of control, but not defending Rove and Libby forcefully.

        It is a distinct possibility that fitz will charge Judy in this affair.  If he does look for the Mighty Wurlitzer® to start setting her up as the fall gal.  Rove is clearly cowardly enough to do that, and I trust Libby is too, consideering the influence of Leo Strauss's ideas about lies being a good thing, on the neos.

        Judy deserves to be fired.

        Keller should be fired, or at least roundly chewed out.

        Pinch should be called before the NYT board to fully explain himself.

        "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

        by boilerman10 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:53:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Look (none)
          Being all too human, I have no problem with occassional lying because that is life. I would have no problem with her if what she lied about was just about money (ask Martha Stewart) or getting a good job (ask "Brownie"). What she lied about is biggest crime of all: Naked agression against a sovereign country and mass murder of innocent, absolutely innocent Iraqi men, women and children. No Sir, there I draw the line.
          •  Sorry (none)
            about Brownie though. His incompetency killed a thousand people. What I meant was lying in our resumes or to a girl about being a millionaire to get laid. Unless you are in a job as FEMA directory, it rarely means a lot, if anything at all.
            •  Brown? (none)
              You know what surprises me about Brown?  


              Brown is living proof that we need a restoration of the Civil Service System, not it's elimination.

              You appoint a horse association flack to head a disaster agency and what do you get?  

              A disaster.

              The next time you hear some Republican farting and belching about "meritocracy in government service" remind him of Mr. Brown.

              "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

              by boilerman10 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:33:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  She was a tool for the culprits. (none)
            See Rove, Libby, Cheney and Bush, plus numerous neos famous and not so famous.

            Judy?  She was like a "drug mule."  She took the story to the nation from the "suppliers."

            "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

            by boilerman10 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:28:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  hmmmmmmmmmm (none)
          from wiki:

          "[Miller] received a master's degree in public affairs from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs"

          "[Woodrow] Wilson pushed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 through Congress"

          Full circle, Judy?

          If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

          by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:16:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Love the snark! n/t (none)

            "same old fears, same old crimes-we haven't changed since ancient times.." "Iron Hand" Dire Straits

            by boilerman10 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:34:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Creel. (none)
            Came up with a media saturation plan of 4-minute infomercials to sell the War for Wilson, pre-TV and Radio. 75,000 paid talking heads sent round the country reciting the same spiel to win people round.

            Afterwards felt some remorse, but by then the damage was done, and the American public never felt quite the same about the govt, not after the doughboys got back and reported that the Krauts weren't horned demons but just ordinary slobs and SOBs like us. And how we danced to DC's tune...

            Then there's Operation Mockingbird...which is just the latest in a long line of Anglosphere newspaper communications ploys. The Brits were doing this back 200 years ago, with "kept" reporters under the thumb of govt intelligence services..

            "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

            by bellatrys on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:45:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  She is still a player (none)

        • Negroponte is still in charge and Judy has serious connection with him

        • Challabi is Iraq oil ministry. (She was pushing the oil for food story hard, including reporting a lot of dubious documents.)

        • WMD to pentagon propaganda office connection. This has yet to be reported.
    •  All this is is sour grapes (none)
      How dare you people attack a woman who just presented an award by the California First Amendment Coalition to Mark Felt's grandson. As Well Judith Miller recently received our countries highest honor in a secret ceremony.

    •  The Times and Confidentiality (none)
      It is the Times' policy that lying and criminal sources are NOT protected sources.

      We know that Judy Miller didn't abide by this policy but you would think that the 3 Times reporters would highlight Miller's behavior and contrast it with the behavior which is required by the Times Confidentiality Policy.

      But they don't. Instead, they quote Sulzberger:

      "She'd given her pledge of confidentiality," said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher. "She was prepared to honor that. We were going to support her."

      There you have it...

      The Chairman of the Board of the New York Times Company and Publisher of the New York Times categorically states that New York Times management cannot be trusted even to TRY to ensure that that the biggest liar among his reporters in decades abides by the Confidentiality Policy of the Company he leads!

      Incredibly, Sulzberger's not the slight bit embarrassed to admit this fact!

      Here's what, in effect, he says.

      "Sure," Sulzberger said, "Bill Keller and I care so little about enforcement of our Confidentiality Policy that we didn't even bother to understand the details of what sources Judy Miller was protecting to determine whether they were lying or had engaged in criminal activity until just recently."

      "And I'm happy to report," Sulzberger added, "that the kind of leadership we've provided vis-a-vis enforcement of the Times Confidentiality Policy has been so successful that the 3 reporters we assigned to write about this matter didn't even think that our Confidentiality Policy was important enough to bring up. We're very pleased with the culture we've been able to establish here at the Times."

      "Hey," Sulzberger continued, "have you seen our commercials on TV about the half price sale on a Times subscription. A Times subscription is a great way to keep up with all the lies we've decided to tell you."

    •  Thanks a ton, Bobby (none)
      I now have a permanent "soft-on" that even Viagra won't erase.

      "It's been headed this way since the World began, when a vicious creature made the jump from Monkey to Man."--Elvis Costello

      by BigOkie on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 07:10:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To the Point (none)

    Nice work. Trees, and forest.

    They need to be journalists, instead of desperately protecting their positions on the A-list. If they did have an epiphany, though... it would still be hard to ever trust them again.

    Why has my "Recommend" button disappeared?

    What will survive of us is love

    by howth of murph on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:13:10 PM PDT

  •  And yet... (none)
    There are plenty of people (39% or so) who cling to the myth of the SCLM like a lifeline.  I work with one of them.  She is a very nice person but engaged in iron-willed denial.  

    Peace in a world free of Religion, Peace in a world where everyone gets Heaven... -- Toni Halliday

    by Wintermute on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:13:19 PM PDT

  •  shrill (none)
    Watching george will looking for a silver lining for bush was sickening.
  •  Where's 20/20?!? 60 Minutes?!? (4.00)
    Where are the exposes on the complicity of American news media in the deceit of this administration?

    Why is Fox News not being lambasted by other media?  

    Is Keith Olberman the only one with any balls to call out other so-called "journalists" for their corrupt role in peddling lies???

    See my diary for more.

    Why do the facts, reality and objective truth hate America and the baby Jesus?

    by WinSmith on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

    •  FRONTLINE this Tuesday on torture (4.00)
      To answer your question, Frontline has been doing some good work.  Two days from now, the program covers torture, not just that committed by U.S. forces in Iraq and at Guantanamo, but also tying the actions of the troops to decisions made "at the highest levels of the government".

      Here's a link to the page on the Frontline part of the PBS site for "The Torture Question": .

      Click on (read the press release) at the bottom of the paragraph describing the program.

      We're all in this together.

      by JTML on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:35:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Answer: they are part of the problem (4.00)
      Today, the Kansas City Star ran a column by Trudy Rubin, on the editorial board of the Philadephia Inquiry.  

      Her column is about how reporters in Iraq and China understand the importance of a free press, and are dying for it.  

      Yet in the United States, a confluence of forces is acting to undermine the legitimacy of a press that questions those in power.

      On the right, radio and TV talk shows promote the notion that the media should be openly partisan. On the left, critics accuse the "mainstream press" of being a lapdog for the administration. The very idea of an independent press is widely debunked.

      Exactly the kind of crap one would expect from a member of the "mainstream press."  See the "balance" between the forces of the right and left.

      The right wants a partisan press, but we on the left see the press as a lapdog of this Administration.

      I would assume Ms. Rubin's column was written before the spokesman for Bush attacked Helen Thomas's patriotism.  I sure would like to know what she thinks about Judith Miller and the quotations cited at the top of this thread.  

      Where were the serious questions by the mainstream press about the reason we invaded Iraq?  If the press in this country does act "free," why should anyone respect them?

      Le peuple en ce jour sans cesse repète: Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira!

      by MoDem on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:17:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (none)
        Agreed, great post.  This false equivalency must stop.  It's as ridiculous as saying:

        "Those on the right love to have sex with dogs and those on the left love to point out that those on the right are having sex with dogs, therefore both sides are focusing on sex with dogs!!"

        It makes no freaking SENSE!!!  But to prove "objectivity" these pussy-ass reporters refuse to put anything on the right in critical context without a comparable "left" example even when none is to be found.  

        Why do the facts, reality and objective truth hate America and the baby Jesus?

        by WinSmith on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:34:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  media: screwin' the pooch (none)
          it's even more ridiculous than that.

          to adjust your example a bit:

          the right decries that there is not enough canine sex by reporters, and the leftists love to point out how the right-wing is having sex with dogs, so therefore if there one thing we can say for sure, it's that the media is not having sex with dogs, despite both sides' obsession with this!

          they simply can't understand that some things really happen, or they don't, so they cannot be treated as he said she said.

          we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
          — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

          by zeke L on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 07:12:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  They are NOT part of the problem... (4.00)
        ...They ARE the problem. The media is entirely incapable of fulfilling its mission to inform and educate. The corporations that own the mainstream media work in concert with their government benefactors. Anybody that expects something like truth from them is terminally naive.

        I just have to remind everyone of examples of incestuous conduct like the recent hiring of Tom DeLay's chief of staff by Time Warner. Must make Tommy boy feel pretty good knowing that his homey is the chief lobbyist for CNN's parent company.

        Also, I thought you might enjoy this from DeLay's website:

        Employing W's tagline, Tommy look like he's working hard to stay awake. Also, it was an accident where I cut the word perseverance, but it seems appropriate in W's economy.

    •  20/20?? (none)
      No semblance of real journalism has ever been practiced on that piece-of-shit show.

      It is not in the same league as 60 Minutes, which has actual substance.

      Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

      by saucy monkey on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:14:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Far worse than Jayson Blair (4.00)
    Judy Miller is worse than Jayson Blair, and by several orders of magnitude.

    Blair made crap up, but to my knowledge, none of his fabricated stories helped lead to the death of 1,975 American soldiers.

    How does that woman sleep at night?

    •  How does that woman sleep at night? (4.00)
      Probably with whoever leaked the information.

      Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

      by Cordelia Lear on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:35:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No offense, Cordelia, (2.66)
        but there goes that subtle sexism again.  I have no love lost for Miller, but why go to the tired and habitual invocation of a sexual relationship with those she's helping, a suggestion that is rarely made when the person at issue is a man?

        Just my perspective.

        •  Ah (none)
          In this case it happens to be true, no?  Would you demand a prostitute not be called a whore simply because she's a woman?
          •  You're saying that Miller literally (none)
            slept with Libby or other Neocons?  Or you're suggesting that she received some non-sexual benefit from them?  Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard about that yet.  But I see you didn't really answer my question . . .  perhaps because what I said is true--this is sexism.
            •  Let me be clear, lest my last post be taken out (none)
              of context.  I meant that comments like Cordelia's are sexist.  Not that questioning Miller's skills as a journalist or conduct in this matter is sexist--rather, the latter two items are, without question, deplorable.
            •  The rumors of Judy (none)
              sleeping with her sources go way back, and come from other reporters, i.e. when she left her furnished apartment in Cairo, she took her bed sheets with her because she didn't want anyone to see her notes (don't remember where that one came from).

              Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but it seems to be more repeating rumors than sexism, since the rumors are specific to Judy...

              •  Thanks for the clarification. (none)
                I had not heard of any such rumors.  Still, it sounds fairly sketchy to me, without more detail.
              •  rumors are just that....rumors (none)
                They do not substitute for facts. No matter how wide spread they may be, the existance of a rumor is of zero help in deciding the truth or falsehood of something.

                What rumors do tell us is the character of the person who spreads it.

                Reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

                by brenda on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 04:34:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Generally (none)
                  I agree with you, but these very persistent and widespread rumors of Judy's sleeping around with public officials and sources actually provides something of a motive in her case.

                  Juan Cole has written that she used to be fairly reasonable and quite knowledgable about the Middle East, but sometime in the last few years, she went off the deep end. The notion that she got carried away with her access to power and powerful men--not just as a reporter but as part of their world and their personal lives--might explain a lot about her bizarre self-justifications and motivations here.

                  Of science and the human heart, there is no limit. -- Bono

                  by saucy monkey on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 05:41:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  No sexism (4.00)
          FWIW, the rumors of Miller sleeping with sources have been around for some time.

          I would have made the same comment if Miller were a male.  My snark doesn't differeniate between X and Y chromosomes.

          Maybe I should have written <snark> at the end. Consider it added please.

          Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

          by Cordelia Lear on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:46:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You know, it's easy to cite "rumors" (none)
            to avoid a charge of sexism.  But I find it interesting that my google search doesn't turn up a single report of this allegation.

            I think I called it right the first time.

            •  Cheap accusation your part LtC (4.00)
              1. The sexism is in your mind, not mine. I've lived through being the only professional female on an entire floor of a building which covered an entire block on Wall Street. If you want to toss sexism allegations around, go elsewhere.

              2. This is isn't a courtroom. However, I do find your selective determination of guilt and conviction interesting -- how it srikes you seems to be your criteria.

              3. I'm not about to argue the merits of the search strategy you used or whether google was the best tool to do it.  Although since you've gone to law school, I am surprised by such research. I found several pages of references to Miller's contacts, sources and her possible use of "using being a female to her advantage." Try this one for starters.

              4. Lighten up please. My comments were meant as snark. And if I'm the first poster here on DailyKos to express snark, I'll eat my red hat.

              Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

              by Cordelia Lear on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 05:00:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Get off your high horse. (none)
                1. You may think that citing your own accomplishments means you can't be a sexist . . . that simply isn't true.  In fact, I have seen a fair number (not all, by any means) of accomplished female partners in the firms where I have worked engage in the very same kind of sexism as you did here.

                2. I don't know what you mean by this.  I will say, however, that I am more sensitive to sexism when it comes from other women, because they should know better.

                3. I was working today and didn't have time to conduct a full-blown search.  Google was what I did have time for, and I freely admitted it.  I also would have thought that people like you who apparently claim it is common knowledge that Miller sleeps with her sources would have that information readily available.  If the story you link to here (while interesting--thanks) is the best support you have for your original allegation, I rest my case.

                4. I'm sorry if I have made a bigger deal out of your initial comment than was merited.  I will admit that I am sensitive to careless sexism, and the other comments in response to my initial comment fueled my fire on that issue.
        •  you are poorly informed (none)
          no offense, but you are simply off-base.

          sleeping with the sources (including les aspin and miscellaneous military and intelligence personnel) is a well-known part of the newsroom legend of judy "miss run amok" miller.  if you are unaware of this, that's no reason to accuse a poster you do not know of reactionary thinking.  consider your own lacunae first.

          your post makes about as much sense as taking someone to task for saying that james bond is "sleeping with the enemy" because you doubt there is a british agent with a "number" 007 and "her majesty's secret service" is not a british intelligence establishment you have found on google.

          and FWIW, the legend of judy miller also extends to her "special relationship" with sulzberger the less.  i have sources i consider reliable who corroborate this.  JSYK.

          we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
          — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

          by zeke L on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 07:31:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please feel free to cite those sources! (none)
            Otherwise, I consider this tinfoil hat material, other than the Les Aspin info, which has appeared in the mainstream press.
            •  not my place (none)
              i am not an investigative reporter.  i'm just a guy posting on a blog.  you have the luxury to to believe it or not.  now you can't say you never heard it, though.

              but you also have a responsibility to inform yourself better.

              and you should respect netiquette and community norms, among which are refraining from calling people names when you haven't bothered to do due diligence yourself.

              you are out of line.  way, way out of line here.

              we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
              — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

              by zeke L on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 08:39:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are way out of line. (none)
                I didn't call anyone a name; I merely stated that I thought the comment was sexist, which it was, in my opinion.

                Also, I don't view an anonymous blogger's anonymous sources as serving as adequate support for me to say there is a factual basis for statements regarding Miller sleeping with her sources.  The fact that you would offer this up as a "source" on which I should rely is remarkable.

                So please stop lecturing me now.

                •  you want a lecture? (3.00)
                  try calling armando a racist, the way you called cordelia sexist.

                  i don't even care about your tinfoil hat comment to me - you are just further demonstrating your own lack of knowledge.

                  you're not in a courtroom.  you can stop being an asshole when you come around here, y'hear?

                  we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
                  — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

                  by zeke L on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 09:15:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There is a difference in saying (none)
                    a comment is sexist and calling a person sexist.

                    Just as there is in calling a statement racist and calling a person racist.  (Though I'm not sure why you are invoking the name of Armando here, as he has nothing to do with this).

                    I already explained why the article to which you link does not change my mind about this--I explained that when Cordelia posted the same link.

                    And clearly, you have cornered the market on how not to be an asshole.  I can see that by the style exhibited in your comments to me.

                    Good lord.

    •  I would not be shocked if the NY TImes . . . (none)
      doesn't survive.  All they basically sell is the truth. And they have fucked up so totally what do they have left.

      I can tell you other sections of the paper are filled with dirt.  The reporters are under pressure from advertisers to slant stories in a particular direction. Lots of that paper is totallt advertising driven.

      So, the newspaper is coming apart at the seams and it goes way beyond Ms. Miller.

      by nyceve on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:08:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  NO ONE DIED (none)
  •  I guess "Mistakes Were Made" (none)
    all of us who bothered to defend Miller's refusal to reveal her source on journalistic grounds. We are covered with egg today.

    What "we" kemosabe?

    Save your tears for the living

    by immanentize on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:19:03 PM PDT

  •  Flattery will get you everywhere (none)
    Libby promptly asked Miller to autograph her book "Germs" for him.  He no doubt flattered her as he used her for his WHIG agenda.

    The flattery worked.  He won her trust and credulity. She adopted his lies.  I imagine other journalists WHIG manipulated could also be flattered into lying as needed.

    And Judy is so embedded with these neocons that she still uses their rationales:

    "People were confused and perplexed, and I realized then that The Times and I hadn't done a very good job of making people understand what has been accomplished."

    By changing a few words you get the WHIG/Bush party line on Iraq:

    "If people are confused and perplexed about why we liberated Iraq and what's happening there today, then somebody hasn't done a very good job of making people understand all the good things we have accomplished."

  •  This whole (4.00)
    episode is disgusting and shameful. How can we expect the public to ever see the truth when both the government and the press have been proven liars of such magnitude?

    The liars can get away with anything now because no one will be able to recognize the truths in front of them.

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying the Cross" Sinclair Lewis

    by Baseballgirl on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:22:17 PM PDT

  •  Thx, Mando - wrote Broder the so-called dean of (none)
    DC reporters and called the guy a M* . They all are. The DC corps colluded with the WH to manufacture a bogus war then outed a CIA agent to keep potential whistleblowers from going public.
  •  Seymour Hirsch has also been a beacon (4.00)
    in this otherwise sorry affair. The press en masse abdicated their role as the so-called Fourth Estate and champion of public trust. They have allowed themselves to be used as shills for administration propaganda and have been willing dupes of this administration for years. It used to be that a measure of a journalist's worth was the number of people unwilling to talk to him. This new band of pundits wants so much to remain in the inner circle that they will regurgitate almost any lie without even bothering to determine if any of it is true. The Washington press corps is perhaps the worst of the bunch because they imagine themselves to be in the same social circle as the people they are supposed to be covering. They have sacrificed integrity and credibility for a seat at the political trough. The once ferocious watchdogs have become lap dogs.  
    •  That whirring sound (4.00)
      you've been hearing is I.F. Stone spinning in his grave.

      From an appreciation in The Nation

      His method: To scour and devour public documents, bury himself in The Congressional Record, study obscure Congressional committee hearings, debates and reports, all the time prospecting for news nuggets . . . , contradictions in the official line, examples of bureaucratic and political mendacity, documentation of incursions on civil rights and liberties. . . . .

      [He explained that] if you didn't attend background briefings you weren't bound by the ground rules; you could debrief correspondents who did, check out what they had been told, and as often as not reveal the lies for what they were.

      Some excerpts from his writing, here.

      Ed Murrow, too. Spinning.

      Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. -- Donald Rumsfeld

      by Mnemosyne on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:46:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Access Corrupts (none)
        I.F. Stone's Weekly exposed more scandals than anyone of his generation because he knew access corrupts. His sources were public government documents, the contradictions that reveal government scandals hide in plain sight. Izzy got the best stories because he was the only journalist looking in the obvious place.

        The Careerist bias of journalism was shown perfectly in a documentary on Izzy Stone, Walter Cronkite and Stone were cracking each other up at a party until Cronkite saw he was being filmed. In the blink of an eye, Cronkite acted like Stone was a total stranger.

        •  Corruption Now Extends To Documents (none)
          Every week brings new revelations that government documents are being edited by political appointees to make sure they reflect the Bush Administration agenda.  

          The Bush Administration also routinely ignores Congressional deadlines for providing reports and classifies many documents that should be in the public domain.

          Meanwhile, the media are trying to cover more information with fewer people.

    •  Aren't we all being a little naive? (none)

      I mean, the media corps are corporations.  And as such, they are only really beholding to their stockholders.  Profits = success.  "Journalistic integrity" can be far too expensive.

      I doubt that the Times will lose much business over this, although in a sane world, they should.

      If Jesus Christ came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up... - Hannah and Her Sisters

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:33:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  wrong (none)
        News people are granted special privileges and protections because of their special duty to inform the electorate of this democracy. They do not just "owe share-holders." It is only a free and independent press that stands between the people and tyranny. Of course, it is up to the people to repudiate those news people who do not maintain that sacred trust.
    •  There are still some true journalists out there (none)
      but the rest should be called what they truly are:

      JINOS - Journalists In Name Only

      Judith is Miss JINO 2005
      Tweety is the Court Jester

      "As you get older, you get less willing to buy the latest version of reality." Leonard Cohen

      by mentaldebris on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:11:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Victoria Plame (4.00)
    Catnip over at Booman did a little sleuthing and found that Victoria Plame was also used by Fineman in the October 2003 issue of Newsweek. They corrected it -- but the Wayback machine has the original -- and it is referered to in blogs at that time (Kevin Drum's, for ex.). Is it coincidence that Miller also uses this same "mistake" in her notes?

    I have to wonder if, maybe, some of those jurnalists had a pow wow to share some of their notes.

  •  Lies Don't Stink (4.00)
    so badly to the MSM when their served up on a solid gold corporate platter, sorrounded by celebrity and privilege.

    "Everything that rises must converge"

    by jpgod on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:26:03 PM PDT

  •  Too much praise for Arianna? (none)
         She's done some good work, but much of that comes from Jane "firedoglake" Hamsher, who cut her blogging teeth here at DKos, I believe.
         And let's not forget the efforts of our own emptywheel and others, who may be at least as good as anyone in the Hollywood-friendly Huffington stable...
    •  Hmmmm (4.00)
      I am not sure but if Jane Hamsher had the inside sources at the Times that Arianna had, that would surprise me.

      I am talking about the journalistic angle.

      Jane and emptywheel have been killing on Plame gate, but I think Arianna has owned the NYTimes story.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:28:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Clarification" (none)
             Makes sense. I should have noted that. Thx.
      •  Team Victory (4.00)
        I agree with you that Arianna has had the handle on the NYT and the inside angles, but let's be generous in spreading the praise around.

        Opposing tyranny is a team sport.  Whatever we accomplish is a team victory.  There is no "I" in Democrat!

        •  Agreed (none)
          And the work Jane Hamsher and emptywheel and others have done will be critical in the upcoming weeks.

          Because no matter how much I decry the sole focus on indictments, as opposed to BushCo lying, the Media will be all about indictments.

          That's the lay of the land unfortunately.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:37:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Raw Story, My DD, Josh Marshall and Corrente (4.00)
      Have all been excellent in their reporting also!

      "Power to the people right on". - John Lennon

      by jordanl on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:37:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake is Queen!! (4.00)
    She is the one who consistently has the best reporting.  While Arianna (who's okay) is off sailing on rich people's yachts, Hamsher has really gone to work.

    She feels that Bolton is Judy's second source and that indictments are coming for Libby, Rove, maybe Ari and Cheney as an unidicted co-conspirator.

    BTY as for Matthews, the great disappointment, his boss at GE, Jack whatisname, once boasted that he turned Matthews from a liberal to a true conservative.

  •  Still stuck on Judy & the Aspens (4.00)
    At the end of her account in the NYT, when she talks about seeing Libby at the Rodeo in Jackson Hole, to explain his creepy letter about Aspens turning....

    Was she sending a veiled threat to Cheney? Saying, yes, I told Fitzgerald I was in Jackson Hole in August 2003 when all the crap hit the fan. I told him I met with Libby and Cheney (and who knows who else?)

    Or was that weird story about running into Libby and claiming she didn't know him, Judy's way of signaling that she thinks she didn't give up Libby to Fitgerald. (Even thought it seems clear she did, by her own account of her testimoney) Or maybe she didn't give up Libby on any other subject we don't even know Fitgerald is asking about?

    I mean, no way she couldn't have known the guy, right? They'd had two face-to-face interviews in the two previous months, and she said he was a well-known, dependable source of hers. A cowboy had and sunglasses isn't a disguise. She had to know Cheney had a house there. She had to know that in August, Bush & Co. take long vacations. She had to know she'd likely be in Jackson Hole at the same time as Cheney and possibly Libby. None of this could be a surprise to her.

    Her weird ending to her published account has to mean something. It's just not as awkwardly done as Libby's love letter to her.

    The Aspens are turning, Libby wrote.
    Why did he mention the aspens, Fitgerald asked Judy?
    She tells a weird story... maybe because the last time I saw Libby, I'd just been to Aspen in August 2003 and then I went to Jackson Hole and ran into Libby at a rodeo and didn't even recognize him.

    That doesn't say anything about why Libby would write that creepy thing about Aspens turning. If he'd wanted to remind her of running into her in Jackson Hole, he'd have said, Hey Judie, remember when we did the rodeo on Jackson Hole? And she's had some time to make up a better lie, if she wanted to, about what the aspens meant. Obviously, she didn't want to try to come up with some cover story. She wanted to send a message.

    What she said in the paper today is like telling Fitpatrick (and Libby and the world) that she was in Jackson Hole at the same time as Libby and Cheney, right after the Plame thing exploded. Like saying, we had a great opportunity to meet and get our stories straight, out of the public eye.

    Did Fitzgerald know Judy had been in Jackson Hole already? That would mean Fitz has to believe or have evidence that Judy, Libby & Cheney are up to their asses in a conspiracy.

    Or maybe Judy was telling Libby & Cheney, Hey, Fitz knows we were in Jackson Hole together in August 2003? He asked lots of questions about it?

    •  Aspen Code (none)
      When Libby wrote "the aspens will be turning," the word "aspens" refers literally to trees. In explaining Libby's sentence, however, Judy connects "aspens" with Aspen, Colorado, where she attended a conference. Judy, then, appears to claim that Libby's cryptic sentence was, in fact, a code of some kind. Weird.
    •  Just to mess with your head even more (none)
      The last I heard (and he may have gotten a new home since I moved there in '01), Cheney has a house either in or near a swanky development in Jackson called "The Aspens".
    •  I think Miller's telling them she's turned (none)
      I can't help but think Miller has turned. That's why Bennett can say she's a witness, not a target. If Libby's aspens reference was a reminder that they were all in it together, then Miller is replying, yeah, I was there, in Jackson Hole (Cheney's home), and Fitz knows it now too.

      This is to keep her safe, I believe. Remember her quote on CBS (I believe; it was cited on a recent diary/comment on DailyKos... perhaps an intrepid kossack can find the link) that she was scared, or that there were forces out there to be wary of, and that's why she wouldn't testify. (Too tin-foil-y? Remember, this bunch are criminals and think nothing of ordering people to their death, torturing the innocent, and watching poor people drown and starve to death.)

      I think Miller is a narcissistic fool, who, like much of the MSM loves being close to power and wealth, and warped her politics to match. But she was used by the neo-cons, though she may believe she used them. She may even think she's using Fitzgerald. But a mastermind Mata Hari, she ain't.

      Armando's piece goes next to many other great analyses: Jane H, emptywheel, Hunter, digby, Josh Marshall, Arianna, etc.

      "We have proved, then, that crimes are to be estimated by the injury done to society." --Beccaria (1764, emphasis in original)

      by Valtin on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:31:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At least 5 Levels of Ambiguity (none)
      The whole Aspen caper in soon to be indicted Scooter Libby's love letter to soon to be indicted Judy is open to many levels of interpretation.  First let's look at the text:

      He closed the letter on this personal note (although he wasn't quite right on when autumn begins): "You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover--Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work---and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers."

      I took this from an article in editorandpublisher.

      So what was Scooter trying to tell Judy:

      1.  "Aspens"  referring to Judy's old boyfriend, Les Aspin, cabinet member in Clinton's day, and Judy's live in boy friend at the time.  Scooter knows Judy know Aspin because Scooter "knows" Judy.  Reestablishing the old intimacy.

      2.  "Aspens".  refers to their tryst in JACKSON Hole.  Obviously there was more to that than meets the eye.  Judy ended her story in the  NYT with haiku like obscurity because she didn't know what to say.  She can't admit to intimacy with Libby because it provides motive for her lieing for him before the grand jury.  But she has to come up with something because otherwise it is all too bizarre.

      3. "roots. . . connected"   Obviously--we are all in this together honey girl. . .

      4.  That ugly word-- "turning".  A veiled reference to once one of the connected aspens starts turning, they all turn.  That is, when Judy rolls over on Scooter, it starts a domino chain reaction--Scooter rolls over on Rove rolls over on Dr. Evil, rolls over on the Chimp--huge mess!!

      5.  So  "come back to life"  Wish we could put it all back together like it was in the good old WHIG days when you were shilling for us pre-WMD.

      6.  "Thoughts and prayers."  No ambiguity here.  Pray, Scooter, pray!!

      But Judy was either too smart or too afraid to do any of this.  Instead she did what she has done for years--put self ahead of principle and said just enough in the GJ to drop a dime on Scooter and (hopefully)  insulate herself from perjury and obstruction charges.  Shameful.

      As some clever commentator signs off "Fitz, don't fail me now."   Judy must go down with the whole rotten crew.

      What rough beast, its hour come round at last/Slouches toward Bethlehem waiting to be born?

      by cova1 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 05:52:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Good on ya', soothsayers." (4.00)
    Right on about Pincas--and he has an occasional co-writer who can get 'er done (can't remember the name).  Jim VandenHei has nailed it, here & there.  The no-names & the unfamous at Knight-Ridder have done some excellent work.  It also seems clear that Hersch has put the hammer down on some aspects of this Bu$hit process.

    Not one talking head, not a pundit nor a journo, has even been in the neighborhood of the truth--lost in space, absent--croaking toads.

    Worse yet, the assignment editors have just let this slide & slide.  How in the Hell can the Downing Street memo go unreported?  What deep, dark cave (lined with 500 Euro bills) do you have to live in to let the Niger document forgeries slip down the rabbit hole into Alice's Wonderland?  Nixon applauds from the grave.

    This on-going shit is not plausible.  Five years of bizzaro-land and counting on to . . . ?

  •  Don't beat yourself up too much (4.00)
    for defending Miller on First Amendment grounds -- that should have been everyone's first instinct.  I would have had a hard time believing at the outset that Ms. Security Clearance Run Amok was not acting as a journalist, but rather a pure disinformation conduit whose true concern in deciding whether she could speak was simply whether she'd be impeding Scooter Libby's attempt to obstruct justice.  (Her claim that she decided not to speak because she was afraid she'd screw up his story -- which implies that otherwise she felt no compunction against speaking -- gives the lie to her assertion of privilege as well as in my opinion giving rise to what should be an obstruction charge against her.)  But I truly would have had a hard time believeing that the Times would let her do so unimpeded, Jeff Gerth's previous exploits notwithstanding.  The role of the Times in this is what truly pains my journalism-loving heart.

    The eventual articles on what the Miller affair implies for the proper role of journalistic privilege will be fantastic.  I'll look forward to reading about them here.

    "If you [just] wanted to reduce ignorance, you could ... abort every Republican baby in this country, and your ignorance rate would go down."

    by Major Danby on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:27:13 PM PDT

  •  No egg on your face..................... (4.00)
    You were defending a sound principle. The First Admendment. I disagreed because I did not believe that Judy Miller deserved the respect of the First Admendment. Once she had become a propaganda shill for this administration, IMO, she was no longer a honest journalist. Aw shucks, she was not even a journalist. She was a power hungry fraud. A close personal friend of the White House. She could no longer be trusted to be a reporter of the truth. And although, I would have agreed with Cooper I just could not agree on Miller. Thus, the First Admentment is good, some reporters are bad.

    So no egg for you, heh!

    Barn Babe Parking Only... All others will be towed....

    by BarnBabe on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:28:17 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm (4.00)
      There is nothing more damaging to a principle than its misapplication.

      I was rather foolish in trusting Miller not to abuse it.

      So, I think there is egg. At least, I feel embarrassed about it anyway.  

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:31:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I fell for it too for awhile... (4.00)
        And your observation that the principle has been co-opted for an impure purpose makes her holding herself out as a martyr for journalistic freedom doubly galling.  

        Now, please re-channel ANY inclination toward embarassment where it belongs: into disgust that this cretin would ask us to stand behind her in an totally unprincipled attempt to save herself and her propagandist friends.

      •  And... (4.00)
        Too little attention has been paid to a practice which threatens journalism:  acceptance by journalists as well as by political hacks of anonymous sources using their anonymity as a sword, not a shield.

        Some mention of this has crept into MSM accounts of this situation, but it should be brought front and center--there's a difference between obtaining information for the public from whistleblowers who would pay a personal price for rfeleasing the information and receiving attacks which can't be traced back to their point of origin.

        We're all in this together.

        by JTML on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:47:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're embarrassed because (none)
        you have integrity,Armando. What Miller & her ilk support is this kind of insidious fudging of the truth. You were standing on principle- she has no principles. A big, big difference in my view.

        A Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy- Benjamin Disraeli

        by vcmvo2 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:53:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Egg is Right Mando... (none)
        That's what we get for ever giving a shill like Judy the benefit of the doubt. We well knew she was on the take after her reporting on WMD was exposed after the run up to the war. We well knew she was a facilitator for the slaughter in Mesopotemia, the hijacking of sound American foreign policy, and of the 2004 elections -- way before she was thrown in the cooler. How could she ever be classified a martyr and a heroin, as too many of us gave her credit for on these front pages?

        You get my admiration for your apologies.

        Just Doing My Small Part In Pissing Off The Religious Right.

        by chuco35 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:58:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think you had the wrong principle. (4.00)
        Not to rub it in, but the principle behind the journalistic privilege is to protect whistleblowers who endanger their jobs, reputations, or physical wellbeing to expose malfeasance by the powerful. The Miller case had nothing to do with that laudible aim. Miller simply repeated WH spin. Nobody was revealing wrongdoing, and nobody needed protecting. I don't understand how Miller's protecting a lawbreaking propagandist ever got mixed up with the idea of protecting whistleblowers. The fact that it did will now degrade even the most legitimate applications of the principle behind it.

        Those who fell for the scam, seems to me, now have an obligation to acknowledge that Miller, prima facia, deserved no source-protection privilege whatsoever, and appears, in fact, to deserve indictment as a co-conspirator.

        Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

        by DaveW on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:00:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No it isn't (none)
          that simply is incorrect as to what the principle is.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:04:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, what is the justification for it? (none)

            Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

            by DaveW on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:09:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You limit it to whistleblowers (none)
              That is your mistake.

              The reasons for anonymity go beyond whistleblowers.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:13:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Like what? (none)
                Maybe we're quibbling about definitions here. I mean someone who takes a risk to reveal information that the public requires in order to make informed decisions. If a marketer "leaked" to Miller that his magic pill would cure all kinds of cancer, would Miller have a right to protect his anonymity? I think it's absolutely clear that she would not, because he said nothing in the public interest. I also think she should clearly be prosecuted for obstructing an investigation of the quack.

                I see no difference in this case. An exception placing journalists essentially above the law is necessary but very troubling. To apply it to protecting the anonymity of propagandists who take no risk of retribution is to degrade and endanger it.

                Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

                by DaveW on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:32:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hey Armando, by the way, re your tag (none)
                Is the "SCOTUS is extraordinary" line now meant (or always meant) to be ironic? I didn't originally read it that way, but recent events have either a) brought out its sly irony, or b) turned a manifesto of idealism into an ironic joke.

                "We have proved, then, that crimes are to be estimated by the injury done to society." --Beccaria (1764, emphasis in original)

                by Valtin on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:35:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Kudos for integrity (none)
        A lot of us were frustrated with you (and other liberal bloggers) who bought into St. Judy as a First Amendment poster child - we argued with you ad nauseam from what I remember. Been looking lately for some acknowledgment from the diehard first amendment types that they goofed. Nada. Until today. You are first. So congratulations!

        We don't have any right to criticize the MSM for not being honest about mistakes if we can't be.

        The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

        by Psyche on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:21:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Scrambled eggs (none)
      The obvious result of beating yourself up with egg on your face.

      But if you, while you, your mea culpa redeems you.

      "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

      by muledriver on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:15:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  why is she out of jail? (4.00)
    she agreed to testify and her testimony is "I don't recall".  OK back to jail. If it were up to me she would be publicly flogged in Times Square. Pay per view and all.

    Measure twice, cut once.

    by zig on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:29:10 PM PDT

  •  Andrea Mitchell (none)
    has a new book out, one of those "I love me to death!" books celebreties (or wannabees) put out there when their careers are sagging or want to move to something else.

    Could she be retiring anytime soon?

    "I aim to misbehave." Capt. Malcom Reinolds

    by Ralfast on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:30:01 PM PDT

  •  Great diary, (none)
    The problem is really the media, and their corporate bosses, and frankly, Miller is just an obvious and particulary odious example. But this kind of thing is likely happening all the time. It is terrible when we cannot rely on news sources esp. in a time of national crisis, like the run-up to the Iraq war. I never did believe the NYTimes analysis, and now I just don't trust their reporting anymore. A pity. I find "The Nation" myopic. So, truly, I am at a loss.

    Nice work.

  •  If I had the time right now to (none)
    do the research, I would be writing about how this is just a subset of the larger issue of Judy Miller's complicity in selling the WMD lies and such to the American public.  Deals were obviously made for access to certain key players and for future exclusives and so forth if she played along.  And probably some money was thrown in.  Her role in the Plame affair is mere peanuts but still part and parcel of her role in misleading us into war in Iraq.  That is not only stinky journalism.  It is something much much worse.

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:31:45 PM PDT

    •  you are on the money... (none)
      ...and plenty of people believe that the trail leads to a WH effort to destroy the work of Valerie Plame and the colleagues, assets, and cutouts who would have stopped Bushco cold by exposing the truth.

      Follow the money. Arms traders. Weapons dealers. It's a vipers' nest.

  •  Amen to this: (4.00)
    On the flip I want to take a closer look at 4 other journalists (other than Miller and Cooper, of course Novak was also involved but he has not been a journalist for a long time) who KNEW the Bush Administration was lying -- Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Andrea Mitchell of NBC;

    What do Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Andrea Mitchell all have in common, besides their sticky fingers stuck within this journalistic disgrace? All of them have arrogantly and obnoxiously downplayed, spun, and chummed the water of the Plame affair, repeatedly, every step of the way while completely ignoring their part in the play. Disgraceful.

    Daddy, what did you do during the great 'Don't-you-Jamma-Obama-you-damma-llama!' Diarylanche?

    by LeftHandedMan on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:31:49 PM PDT

    •  Exactly! Time to start pressuring NBC (none)
      I'll write them a letter and call everyday until their 3 "reporters" tell their story. Cooper, Miller and Pincus have told.

      No more pretending. Each of them needs to be called upon to explain what they know and testified to.

      I will look at their guest schedules for their shows and contact the guests.  Get them to ask the questions. If Shumer or some other Dem goes on Hardball or MTP, they should ask the questions. Over and over.

      You only regret the things you don't do.

      by DailyLife on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:05:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's ok, Armando (none)
    Sometimes righteous indignation is used to cover up the smell of bullshit.

    At what point do we give up on the NY Times and MSM altogether?  Do we give them as many second chances as we give Congress?

    Give me Liberty or give me death!

    by guyermo on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:32:17 PM PDT

    •  Trust, But Verify... Well, Forget the 'Trust,' But (none)
      The corporate media has lots of good people working in it.  The problem is that you just can't assume anything.  You have to rely on multiple sources of information.  And this is nothing new.  Even if they were much more reliable about truth-telling, you'd still need multiple sources, just to get a well-rounded picture.

      The internet allows tremendous access to primary source data in a lot of areas.  You can check things out, and others can, too. So increasingly, the blogosphere really will act as a check on the corporate media.  On local news, expect the blogosphere to overtake the corporate media in a very short time. But on national, regional and statewide stuff, there really is a great deal of insitutional strength that makes the corporate media valuable.  Pay attention to it--but not sole attention.

  •  They all lied and troops died (none)
    The war on Iraq was a lie from the beginning and the media and Congress went along with Bush. There has to be more than Miller fronting for Bush's actions. This has been a full court press [no pun intended] to justify Bush's actions.  

    Bush gets a pass because Congress, pundits, talking heads and the press were accomodating.  Let's put it this way THEY ALL LIED AND TROOPS DIED.

  •  Talk about being violated. (none)
    I have been following this story incredibly closely and if what you (and so many other well written blogs) are proposing is true, added to the fact that there has been very little mentioned about ANY of this in the MSM this weekend, we are truly fucked! It seems as if Fitz is the American people's only hope.

    My question becomes; Does Fitzgerald possibly have a chance to prevail against the corporate behemoth that now contols our media and the despicable influence peddlers who run our country?

    "Power to the people right on". - John Lennon

    by jordanl on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:33:32 PM PDT

  •  Here's why I think Miller either sucks or is lying (4.00)
    She claims she doesn't know if Libby was the one who gave her Plame's name, and that she can't remember what source caused her to write "Victoria Flame" at another place in her notebook?  

    How does a journalist write a well-sourced article if s/he doesn't know where the information came from?  (Yes, I realize I'm ending a sentence about writing with a preposition--but native Midwesterners are genetically unable to avoid this grammatical faux pas).

    This professed inability to remember is even less plausible given the attention that has been paid to this particular piece of investigation.  It isn't as if she took these notes months or years ago and had no reason to think about them since that time.  Almost immediately after she took the notes, the Novak piece was published and a firestorm broke loose.  Her notes on Plame/"Flame" have been known to be important almost since the moment she wrote them, which would lead one to think she would remember the facts and circumstances surrounding them in excruciating detail.

    Finally, why won't Miller talk about her sources to the New York Times for its story on the matter?  Are there other (i.e., non-Scooter) sources who haven't released her from a confidentiality obligation so she can speak?  If so, why didn't we hear about that in connection with her jailing?  Or is there other information she has revealed to the grand jury and/or prosecutors, but simply refuses to share with her employer for its story?  

    I hope the Times fires Miller.  It sounds as if this is long overdue, and is crucial if the Times wishes to maintain/resurrect any sense of integrity.

    •  Miller is just the pawn. (none)
      Sulzberger and the editors, we learn now, were equally guilty. Firing Miller would only be a start. The rest would have to go, too, if the Times hopes to salvage its stained and tattered reputation.

      Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

      by DaveW on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:04:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  guilty, yes, but... (4.00)
        as I read the Times account today I couldn't help but marvel at how the Repubs once again managed to do their dirtywork while also muzzling a mainstay of (perceived liberal) journalism.  Dan Rather comes to mind.
      •  Also of note is what Miller's lawyer (none)
        told Fitzgerald in order to get him to limit her testimony in front of the grand jury to Libby.  According to the NYT article, Bennett, Miller's lawyer, told Fitzgerald that he had personally reviewed her notes and that she "had only one meaningful source."  If she didn't think the source that gave her the "Valerie Flame" reference was Libby, how could Bennett possibly say for sure that she had "only one meaningful source"?  I wonder if Fitzgerald felt duped when he read the NYT story.
    •  Lawyer, she is lying. Why is she not in jail? (none)
      It's obvious she's covering for someone, I'm guessing it may be Cheney.

      But, she's lying. Why is she walking free?

      She's covering for someone.Period.

      by nyceve on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:52:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. (none)
        But I don't know the answer.  Yet.  Perhaps Fitzgerald's indictments won't stop at the White House.  We can only hope . . .
      •  in jail for what? (none)
        she was in jail previously for contempt - for refusing to testify to the grand jury.  she has now done so.

        perhaps she perjured herself.  if so, she might be indicted soon. or perhaps not if there is no evidence to solidly counteract her reaganesque "gee i can't recall" BS.

        and she can't be convicted for violation of the IIPA, for instance, because she's a journalist.  if she really had a secret clearance active, she might be in trouble for not protecting classified info.

        but right now there's no reason to put her in jail.

        count me among the people who would like to see her suffer a long sojourn in the ruffest tuffest slammer there is.  but i don't want anybody thrown in jail just because.  we have enough of this arbitrary abuse of justice already.

        we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
        — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

        by zeke L on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 07:47:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  How many wasy can you say (none)
     Hyporcrite and tool?  The DC press doesn't have the spine to cover the local school board with integrity let alone the POTUS.  Send them to Greeland and they can watch the ice melt for entertainment. Oh, wait, Greenland doesn't want them.  Useless mouths to feed in a challenging climate!

    Theocracy is tyranny

    by Druidica on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:34:54 PM PDT

  •  Russert, Matthews and Mitchell (4.00)
    should be fired.

    They were playing on the same team as the White House, covering for them.  

    That is not journalism.

    •  Corporations (none)
      pay for these people to speak for the corporation.
      so who is going to fire a good mouth peace.
      I wish it were diffirnt, but that is how it is

      "Tie every republican to this failure of an administration" Laura C (subscriber) 9/24/05

      by Luetta on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:36:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What can be done? (none)
      I'd like to see them fired too. The problem is that they not only won't be fired, nothing will happen. They keep on whoring because there are no repercussions - in fact they're rewarded for it. What we need to figure out is how blogs can flip the reward contingencies. It's interesting that three of these people are from NBC. Massive writing campaigns may help temporarily, especially when complaints go to management rather than individual pundits but we need to do better than this. Would welcome suggestions about changes we can make to be more effective.

      The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

      by Psyche on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:54:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't write to the pundits (none)
        or their corporate whore bosses. Write to the heads of the companies that ADVERTISE in the corporate whore media. Tell 'em you won't support Facism with YOUR dollars.

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 04:38:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There is no media on TV... (none)
    ...with the exception of K.O. and T.D.S. on a regular basis and very little in print, unless you know where to look for it.

    For what was it, six years, I watched the "media" go after a President because he got a blow job and didn't tell us about it, but a president who lies us into war to line the pockets of his contributers and steal resources, commits treason by outing an undercover agent, sabotages our economy,  and possibly allowed terrorist attacks to happen on this country is treated like the greatest thing since sliced bread. Of course, nevermind that any one of us at Dkos is most likely more clued in than the guy in the White House.

    If the Man has been keeping us down, then the MSM is his Tool, and they throb with pride at their wonton screwing of the American public.

  •  This is the part that bubbles to the top... (none)
    One thing we do know about Judy Miller is that she's no dummy. Whether or not Libby said the words "Valerie Plame," and whether or not Libby knew or revealed that Plame was covert, it's inconceivable that Miller did not know what was going on: a high-level administration official was trying to smear a critic of the administration. That's news. That's something the readers of the New York Times --and the American people -- deserved to know, and yet she did nothing with the information.

    I don't know if I thought of this myself or if I read it on DKOS (probably the later) but I have been screaming for the past few months "WHY ISN'T THE FACT THAT LIBBY OUTED A CIA AGENT THE STORY!!"

    Its not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:37:31 PM PDT

      the story. It shouldn't.  The story should be the London memo and the forged Niger documents.  The CIA outing is a distraction to keep the focus away from the Administration's real problem.
  •  Judy's coziness w/the Bushies (4.00)
    This went disappointingly unexplored in the Times piece--nothing about the bizarre aspen message beyond that it had a "conversational tone" -- or her visits by Bolton in jail. Details conspicuous by their absence.
  •  No egg on YOUR face Armando (none)
    because you were defending an idea, not a person.

    We all new that she (and the administration) was manipulating the system of "annonymous sources" while you defended the same idea.  That was why you found little agreement on your stand.

    Some talking head put it best this morning that this whole incident actually dammaged the first amendment by protecting those who squelch dissent.


  •  It's the editors (4.00)
    "It is an embarrassment to the NYTimes and all of us who bothered to defend Miller's refusal to reveal her source on journalistic grounds. We are covered with egg today."

    No, the Times completely embarrassed themselves. I don't feel a lick of sorrow for the Times. Sulzberger, Keller are the ones who failed here.

    Miller's conduct has always been an embarrassment, but they kept her on. When her stories proved false they did not challenge her or her sources. Instead of getting to the bottom of what is becoming an explosive scandal, they took to the podium for some noble cause. To pin down on Miller, Russert, Matthews, Cooper, etc. is to miss the editors that reinforced their jounalistic malpractice. I think the people we can't see of the media are the ones who are most at fault.

    Just say 'NO' to torture enabling judges.

    by KingJames on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:40:05 PM PDT

  •  Why did they hate Clinton so much??? (none)
    It is the whole DC Cocktail Party Circuit establishment. These are the same people that gave BushCo a pass in lying to the country in order to force the Iraq Debacle down our throats.

    The irony is Bush tries to be a "regular guy" to the American public and is an aritocratic elitist snod in Washington and the press is in awe of him as if he is King.  

    Clinton was criticized for being an liberal elitest snob that didn't understand the regular people and the Washington press was not afraid to skin him alive because Clinton was one of them, humble beginings not abnormally wealthy (especially after Ken Star generated so many legal fees for the Clintons)

    Its not easy being a Floridian.

    by lawstudent922 on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 01:42:01 PM PDT

  •  Pinch is to blame (none)
    Publisher Pinch Shulz'er is the one to blame really. Bill Keller couldn't control Judy, even after telling her not to do Iraq anymore. She still went ahead and assigned herself to oil-for-food reporting, using Chalabi's documents. Punch supported her all the way and asked Keller to participate in legal strategy mtgs. So Keller had to take himself out of Plame/Wilson reporting.

    Pinch told Gail Collins to write eds supporting Judy and they wrote about 15 editorials, with no support from any other major paper in the country.
    Now this!

    I hope his board forces him out. He and Judy have been together for 30 years; they kind of grew up together on the paper. Pinch could very well have been one of her bed-mates in those early years, one of many.

    Now that the edit page is compromised, who will pay for TimesSelect?

    •  no tears for Keller (4.00)
      He should have fired her ass, exposed her, or resigned. He has been a willing tool of this all along, and now he has to go (surely along with Sulzberger). This was nothing less than wholesale betrayal of the readership and the public by the paper, a thousand times worse than Jayson Blair.

      The day Judy lost her appeal (setting her up for jail time), I called the national desk at the Times and asked how many reporters were assigned to cover the original story, that is, to find out the newsworthy item of who had leaked Plame's name in the first place. I was told that the answer was zero: no one had been assigned this story. Now they have admitted that to protect Judy, they in effect declared the entire story off limits. This is a journalistic catastrophe: the country's foremost newspaper decided not to cover an entire story. The NYT has proclaimed loudly for two years how, by defending Judy, it was defending the very existence of a free press. Now we know for a fact that, even as it proclaimed such high purposes on its editorial pages, the paper was busy in the back room cutting the heart out of the free press with a dull spoon.

      This should be seen for what it is: the complete collapse of our ability to depend on our free press to challenge power in our democracy. As I have said for some time, there is absolutely no difference in the way the NYT covered this story and the way Pravda would have covered it under Stalin: they made it disappear. I would sack Sulzberger, Keller, and anyone who had anything at all to do with the decision not to print this story up front. As for Miller, she should be fired summarily and left to pay every last legal bill her own damn self. If she paid for a thousand years, she could not undo the damage she has inflicted on her paper and on the freedom and reputation of the press.

      "Scrutinize the bill, it is you who must pay it...You must take over the leadership." - Brecht

      by pedestrian xing on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:19:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good job, Armando. (none)
    Well written.
  •  I have said it before (4.00)
    I will say it again.

    Untill the media consolidation is busted up in this nation not a damn thing well be done to improve it.

    There is a name for it.It is an ugly name and one that I think most Americans are not willing to except yet.

    It is FASCISM..

    •  Damn straight (none)
      The last prominent figure to criticize the corporate media was Howard Dean, and immediately after he did so the smear machine swung into high gear, and he went from frontrunner to screaming maniac before you could say "lying corporate whores".

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:13:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I hope you have read the Oct. Harpers mag.. (4.00)
      .....specifically Lewis Lapham's essay on fascism in America. It is breathtaking. One of his major points is that too many members of the left are still wondering if it is possible for America to go fascist, afraid to address the reality. Name the evil. Name the evil. Fascism.
  •  Good job (none)

    Well-behaved women rarely make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    by jaysea on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:01:05 PM PDT

  •  amen, and... (4.00)
    because I have heavily criticized Armando in the past for supporting Miller's source protection over what I saw as her duty to the public, I want to thank him again for his excellent posts yesterday and today that dissect so well the hypocrisy of the media and the damage done here, not just by Miller and the Times, but, as he says, by the whole DC media cocktail circuit, and also for admitting he was wrong to defend Miller. It takes heaps of intellectual courage to admit you were wrong on positions in which you have invested yourself fairly strongly, but Armando has fearlessly grasped the nettle here. Indeed, Armando is one of the first I have seen systematically to 1) expose the complicity and culpability of others who had this information (like Matthews and Russert), and 2) push the delicate nose of the whole DC media establishment and pundit class deep into the  putrid excrement of their self-righteous and, now we see, utterly hypocritical responses to Clinton's lies about a private affair.

    It is my hope that others who lined up with Miller on the principle of source protection will come to this same understanding. While I'm at it, it is my hope that the entire Dem leadership who swallowed the lies at the heart of the Plame scandal, and thus helped take us into a disastrous war, will now take a lesson from Armando-on-Miller, find the courage to say they were wrong, and seek a way to end the nightmare they helped drag us into.

    "Scrutinize the bill, it is you who must pay it...You must take over the leadership." - Brecht

    by pedestrian xing on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:01:43 PM PDT

  •  add one more to your "honest" list... (none)
    ...and that is William Arkin, reporter extraordinaire on national defense matters. He was the target of dirty tricks when he told the truth about the war on Iraq. You can read his blog at
  •  In Complete Agreement. (none)
    She may be smart, but she sure didn't play it too smart on this. One other person that needs to be mentioned is Lou Dobbs for sticking up for that hack.

    Where is the MSM focus on Miller and her bogus WMD stories in relation to Plamegate, Libby, Rove, et al? During her stint on Lou Dobbs, he acted as if she were Joan of Arc and Mother Teresa combined. His statements about Patrick Fitzgerald and Judge Hogan were amusing yet disturbing, especially when he said, "I will not forgive Fitzgerald for what he did to you. I think it is an onerous, disgusting abuse of government power, and that of Judge Hogan, straightforwardly." That "First Amendment" argument was an impressive act, but tanked at the box office. If a source of mine manipulated me, and in the process broke the law to smear somebody, I'd out them no problem. They would have violated my trust and my ethical standards. The exception of course would be if I was in on it. Then I'd probably draw my line in the sand; I'd huff and I'd puff and I' see where I'm headed. Reporters have only their reputations and if that reputation is you're a crony, a soft touch, or a liar, then you're not much use as a journalist and need to move into the columnist arena with the likes of Bob Novak. Miller is just another bad reporter with an agenda. She needs to be exposed for the phony she is like Janet Cooke, Patricia Smith, Jay Forman, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair were before her. When FAIR and AIM are saying the same thing, the MSM needs to stand up and take notice; not enable Miller to continue her charade. If reporters in Indonesia can unite against their journalistic charlatans, then so can the country that founded the First Amendment AND the New York Times that allowed her to happen.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein

    by A Patriot on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:07:10 PM PDT

    •  Cooke & Blair Were Small Time (4.00)
      Neither Janet Cooke nor Jason Blair wrote anything that was profoundly false.  They made stuff up, but it was all quite plausible, an exaggeration or fabrication that generally fit within the texture of truth.  

      But Miller's work differs dramatically.  First, in terms of the magnitude of importance of what she's writing about. Second, in terms of her prominance as an agenda-setting reporter. Third, in terms of how totally opposed it was to the texture of truth.

      It's quite telling that Cooke has long been the perennial example of bad journalism. In his book, Good News, Bad News: Journalism Ethics And The Public Interest, Jeremy Iggers argues that journalism ethics itself is the problem, and the use of Cooke as an example is symptomatic of what is wrong.

      In an earlier mini-essary, "Journalism Ethics: Right Name. Wrong Game?" Iggers wrote:

      The Janet Cooke Case

      Understanding this may help explain how one high-profile case of ethical misconduct - the Janet Cooke case - became the textbook example of unethical journalism. In 1981 the Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize for Cooke's dramatic news story, "Jimmy's World," about the life of an eight-year-old drug addict. Jimmy turned out to be a fictional composite character, the Post returned the prize, and Cooke resigned in disgrace.

      Yet compare Cooke's sin with that of Kurt Lohbeck, a former "CBS News" stringer in Afghanistan. In the Columbia Journalism Review (January/February 1990), reporter Mary Ellen Walsh offered evidence that Lohbeck falsified reports, staged battle scenes, and worked as a publicist for the Mujahidin. Lohbeck's fictions continued much longer than Cooke's, reached a larger audience and were more substantially false, distorting the larger picture. In theory, the Lohbeck case ought to rank among the great journalistic scandals of our time, yet it remains little known.

      The Cooke case is an egregious example of someone who violated the fundamental rules of journalism; however, if we look at those fundamental rules, they turn out to be very troublesome.

      Miller is a "journalist" in Lohbeck's tradition. Not Cooke's.

      •  Good points and thanks for the info. (none)
        The main point for me is that she needs to be shown for what she is and meet the same fate. In the cases I state, the one connection is that they all have ethics problems and their publishers somehow let them slip through. I'm not arguing that she is worse; that's blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain, I'm pointing out that she needs to meet the same fate, or worse, as the others. anything short of complete discloser, retractions, and public apologies by both her and the NYT would be unacceptable. How about a comment on Indonesia?

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein

        by A Patriot on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 04:37:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    I'd love to see a factual critique of some of these sometimes cowardly, sometimes unfair, sometimes pandering "journalists".
    Chris Matthews sometimes uses the badger approach.He'll keep badgering a guest for a "yes" or "no" answer to a question that leaves the guest unable to articulate their position in a thoughtful way. I'd like to see some examples of this type of sensational and unfair "journalism".
    These guys are earning the big bucks, let's hold their feet to the fire since they are supposedly members of the fourth estate.
  •  Nice work Armando (none)
      I still feel those who supported JM on the principles of not revealing sources on journalistic grounds were in the right.

      Sources should be protected. Clearly this matter goes beyond that to National Security. I believe it is called Treason.

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:10:37 PM PDT

  •  Confused (none)
    Can someone please explain this to me? The Times is no friend of the Bush administration. Why would they try to support the WMD claims and then try to protect Libby? Was it just incompetence? Was Judy Miller a lone wolf or was the whole organization beating the war drums? And finally, can we completely blame them? There were a dozen valid reasons for removing Hussein, beyond the false WMD claims (and the grossly incompetent handling of the whole aftermath.)
  •  Miller's Security Clearance??? (none)
    I read in the NYT article that Judith Miller had a security clearance. Since when are journalists given security clearances??!! Is this a customary practice?

    What business did she have getting a  clearance!! She is just a journalist. This is quite disturbing. I wonder how many other journalists (perhaps at the Washington Times or Fox) this Administration has given clearances to??

    What's disgusting about the whole thing is that Miller was in BED with the Bush Administration deep under the bed covers, spreading forth their propaganda. She tossed her journalistic objectivity aside, turned out the lights, and pulled up the sheets.

    In my mind she is no better than Armstrong Williams. The only difference -- he got paid -- she did it for free.

    ** Stop getting "skewed" by right wing radio - **

    by stlseven on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:12:29 PM PDT

  •  On Russert - Toady and suck up extraordinaire (none)

    Did Tim Russert report any of this to his audience? Why no. Not ever. A disgrace. But Tim Russert has never been a true journalist. He is a political hack whose connections landed him a spot at NBC and then the Meet the Press gig that he has, to be fair, turned into the must see spot on Sunday talk.

    Because Russert has always been a political animal, it is hardly surprising that he felt no obligation to his audience. As Somerby says, he plays us for rubes every Sunday. And his lying to his audience about what he knew about Plamegate is par for the course.

    For whom does Russert work? More - for whom does he think he's working?

    I don't mean to ask who pays his bills, nor even who he sides with politically (both are obvious) but what is his motivation to be a journalist? What good (besides his own) does he thhink he is serving?

    In the old days before the "professionalisation" of journalism, reporters served their own reputations for accuracy (if not fairness) and for "gettingthe story" - scooping.

    Before the conglomeration of ownership they served their own benefit by competing with other reporters to get the story, and get it right. Reporters were motivated by self image and, in the best of instances, a sense of honour.

    Since most reporters "worked their way up" without the benefit of such credentialising factories as J-schools, they had very little contact with, and owed absolutely no loyalty to, elites and upper class twits. Indeed, there was a certain class friction.

    I think Russert turns all that around. He is not at all concerned with hunting up a story as he is in getting it hand delivered to him. He competes not for exclusive stories about abuse of power, but exclusive interviews with the abusers of power.

    He sees himself as a conduit for the powerful. He serves the purposes of those who would use him. He sees himself as most valuable when he delivers an audience for those he admires and fawns over. Point finale.


    Strange and beautiful are the stars tonight, that dance around your head.

    by deepfish on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:16:42 PM PDT

    •  asdf (none)
      Journalists should be excited when they see things that don't add up.  Matthews, Russert, Kurtz, etc (even Cohen) all seemed to have abdicated their journalistic responsibilities in order to stay in the inner circle.  They refused to dig deeper, digging in their heels and putting their fingers in their ears in hopes that the story would die.  Thank god for the blogs or we would not be informed of anything.  Imagine how much of this stuff went on in the government before blogs uncovered the truth?  Or is it just worse today and money has corrupted so thoroughly that there is no longer any ethics or morals in government or journalism?
    •  As a truck driver, (4.00)
      I will tell you why Russert pisses me off. He wrote that book extolling the virtues of his dad who is a working stiff just like me. What does this toady do in his life? He becomes a tool for those who screw people who work hard and play by the rules like his dad

      If you like incompetence, corruption and cronyism vote Republican

      by Jlukes on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 05:57:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Security Clearance (none)
    The revelation that Miller may have had a security clearance is perhaps the MOST disturbing revelation from the NYT pieves.  Jim ROmenesko has a must-read rundown of the issue here.

    Oh when the frogs. . Come marching in. . Oh when the FROGS COME MARCH-ING IN!

    by pontificator on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:19:31 PM PDT

  •  Miller (none)
    apparrently continued to write about WMD after being told not to by her employer. Did she not think that might have consequences(like a pink slip)or did her association with neo cons lead hher to believe that she was above such demeaning obediance? Actually,shes probably very lucky she went to jail as it likely means an extra three months pay and her legal costs were covered. Maybe NYT should fire her, then take her to court to recover the legal bills they had to swallow.

    it tastes like burning...

    by eastvan on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:28:42 PM PDT

    •  asdf (none)
      That question keeps coming up but no one has given a satisfactory answer.  We know Miller was protecting sources but who for so long has been protecting Miller?  Why was she given a free pass?  Name me another journalist given no oversight by editors.  It is fishy.  Is she a government mole and therefore Keller had no say in what she wrote?
  •  Ethically Challenged (none)
    Wash Post

    In a disclosure that could figure in special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation, Miller said she initially refused to testify about her discussions with Libby because she believed he was signaling her that she should not cooperate in the CIA leak investigation unless her account would clear him.

    Miller said her lawyer Floyd Abrams told her that Libby's attorney, Joseph A. Tate, had related part of Libby's grand jury testimony and was "pressing about what you would say. When I wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want you there.

    Apparently she does not see the ethical problem with this approach.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:35:45 PM PDT

  •  The most chilling part of this story (none)
    The mea minima culpa in today's Times quoted Judy Miller as saying whe wants to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country."

    Judy Miller: the Carmen Sandiego of non-existent WMD.

    •  She could cover a big threat to the country (4.00)
      by wrapping herself in a blanket.

      "If you [just] wanted to reduce ignorance, you could ... abort every Republican baby in this country, and your ignorance rate would go down."

      by Major Danby on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:08:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    That Judy Miller is receiving a prestigious journalism award on Tuesday is outrageous.  The email address and webpage of the Society of Professional Jornalists, the organization giving her the award, is posted on my diary page, along with the text of the angry email I sent.

    If you're similarly outraged, send an email to Terry Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Professional Journalists at

    Or better yet, call him direct on his cellphone and express your outrage at (317) 513-8121

  •  Bill Keller should resign (4.00)
    Who at the NY Times allowed Judy Miller to run this show? What was Bill Keller doing? He started off well enough:
    Within a few weeks, in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues.
    This is an astonishing step. To tell a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter that she had lost credibility. Why did Keller do it?
    The note said the paper's articles on unconventional weapons were credulous. It did not name any reporters and said the failures were institutional. Five of the six articles called into question were written or co-written by Ms. Miller.
    So there you have it...Miller was taken in by her WH sources, which obviously included Libby.

    Nonetheless, Miller was unrepentent, at least as far as Libby:

    He was "a good-faith source who was usually straight with me," Ms. Miller said in an interview.
    So when push comes to shove, and the Times knows that the source is Libby, and that Miller could not distinguish Libby's truth from lies, here is what they do, they ask Miller, and (surprise) she still can't recognize Libby's smear effort:

    Ms. Miller said the subject of Mr. Wilson and his wife had come up in casual conversation with government officials, Mr. Taubman said, but Ms. Miller said "she had not been at the receiving end of a concerted effort, a deliberate organized effort to put out information."
    in spite of the fact that
    she said Mr. Libby wanted to talk about a diplomat....
    So the Times is just letting this "run amok" person, that they KNOW has been (charitably) "fooled" by Libby and the WH in the past, who wouldn't recognize a criminal conspiracy if it bit her in the ass, decide what the obligations of the NY Times are in this situation.
    "The default position in a case like that is you support the reporter," Mr. Keller said....neither [Keller nor Sulzberger] asked Ms. Miller detailed questions...Both said they viewed the case as a matter of principle, which made the particulars less important....I didn't interrogate her....I didn't ask to see her notes...
    What particulars? you mean the particulars that Miller had been previously proven to be in the pocket of this bunch of war criminals, by the NY Times itself?  What particulars? What default position? a default is what you do if there are no extraordinary circumstances...hardly the case here....Keller himself now seems to have a clue:
    "I wish it had been a clear-cut whistle-blower case. I wish it had been a reporter who came with less public baggage.."
    what does that mean? It wasn't either one of those things and that was clear to everyone right away. Is Keller trying to wish away the reality?

    This is an astonishing abrogation of the public trust, as well as the fiduciary duty of the publisher, which makes no sense to me. It didn't make any sense at the time, and it still doesn't, in light of the comments of the people at the Times, about Miller, her temperament and her work. Keller decides she is a loose cannon, then trusts her with the reputation of the paper? This decision to support Miller had to have come primarily from Sulzberger, as did several of the poorly written editorials supporting the Times' position. Besides Keller's obvious and expressed distrust of Miller, he, as editor, would not have the power to decide the position of the paper in this case. No, it was Sulzberger. The question remains "WHY".

    A Pulitzer Prize winning reporter is no small feather in the cap of a newspaper. In fact, it is huge. Sulzberger allowed Judy to be transferred off the WMD beat, but that problem was attibutable to her sources,  who turned out to be wrong, as Judy simplistically put it. But this was different. This was potentially complicity in a felony, perpetrated by the SAME SOURCES. Somehow Sulzberger took the same stonewall stance that has failed to many. Somehow he thought he could mobilize public opinion to save her testimony, which he, at some level, knew would necessitate her being fired. She was his showcase Pulitzer Prize winner. She was his Mark McGuire...she hit home runs...he didn't want to find out she was "on steroids." We joke about who Judy slept with. That wasn't necessary in this case. She was a valuable property, who was goin down, and  Sulzberger was just crossing fingers, wishing hard, hoping the whole thing would go away. By doing that, the unethical nature of Judy Miller and the loss of integrity at the Times have just been made so much more apparent.  

    Keller should resign. I hope he does. Either he was responsible (which I doubt), or he is lying to protect his boss, who is responsible for the management of the Times. Either way, he should go. I don't know, maybe he still thinks that what the Times did was somehow a good thing, a principled thing. It wasn't. It was shitty management...letting the inmates run the asylum.

    Of course, Sulzberger is the wrong man, in so many ways, to be running the NY Times. This is his personal hurricane Katrina: so much warning, so little action.  

    What is ironic about this whole thing is that it was ALWAYS much more about the NY Times than it was about Judy Miller. Keller seems still not to understand that.

    Fitz, don't fail me now...

    by seesdifferent on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 02:49:02 PM PDT

  •  The Problem Is All This Off The Record Stuff (4.00)
    Remember back when journalists tried to find out what was going on so that they could report it to the public.

    Now we have pundits. Pundits know a lot more about what is going on than is known to the public, but since they learned it "off the record" and have an "obligation to their sources" they can't tell the public what they know.

    Everyday we see played out before our eyes the strange machinations of these pundits managing a Chinese Wall of public and secret information inside their own heads. While they clearly know more than they are revealing they take great pains to only ask questions that are based on information that is already public.

    Often you see strange exchanges like on Hardball recently when Mathews asks Fineman if something about Cheney's involvement in the Plame matter was known. To which Fineman, with obvious discomfort says: "Not publicly we don't." So, he knows, but he's not going to tell us since it's not something that can be known publicly.

    The reason for all this is supposedly that journalists would get no information unless they "protect their sources." What it does in effect is to create an entire new class of complicity. It creates a new catagory of information which can be known to journalists, but not by the public.

    Who is it that defines what information falls into this catagory? The politicians of course. By playing the game, "I'll tell you but don't tell anyone," they circumscribe that which the public can be told and that which shall remain secret. In effect the forth estate is coopted by this practice.

    Reporters no longer report the facts as they know them, they opine on a subset of information known to the public, all the while knowing that this is a very inaccurate picture. In the twisted logic of the profession, it becomes necessary not to inform the public of the truth, but to perpetrate the myths and propaganda proferred up for public consumption. That is, it becomes necessary to spin a yarn for the sake of their journalistic integrity.

    When this goes on for as long as it has, those in the profession absolutely lose all conception of truth. Drunk on power and smugly "in the know'" they go about crafting public opinion with their allies in the government. Falsity becomes the norm, and the better at spinning the bull, excuse me "protecting your sources," the higher you rise in the business.

    The Plame leak issue lays out clearly for all to see the danger of having reporters make "off the record" agreements with those on whom they are supposed to report. I don't want Judy Miller and Chris Mathews deciding what they can and can not reveal. I don't want some fuzzy rules of engagement creating a new secret class of information that is defined by some bizarre rules of engagement between the government and the press.

    I want reporters to find out what is going on through any means they can without making deals that restrict my access to the truth.

    The arguement is that they have to protect their sources or people won't come forward and blow the whistle. The case often cited is Deep Throat. This is entirely different. Deep Throat was exposing government corruption, not perpetrating it. This is not the fine line some would have you believe. Woodward and Bernstein chose not to reveal their source because ethically they felt bound to protect the truth, not help sell a lie. Who could have imagined that such a noble principled action would become the prima facia rational for a vast government public relations propaganda campaign waged through information access control using secret sources.

    In closing, secrecy is the devil. Secrecy is the antithesis of a free press. We do not need laws to further protect the ability of the press to keep things secret. We do need journalists who understand their obligations to the truth.

  •  Where is the outrage? (none)
    It might come with indictments, but as long as the media soft pedals this stuff, the public doesn't stand a good chance of  what this story is really all about.

    I think the media can be shamed into doing their jobs, if enough people are following the action, and are willing to call them on it.

    This is what blogs are good at. More pieces like this should do the trick very nicely--and I like that this one names names, and particularly that it gives credit where credit is due.

    Just keep turning it up and pouring it on--That is, if you please.

     And thank you for this one.

  •  Correction. (none)
    The public doesn't stand a good chance of "comprehending" what this story is really about.
  •  I write this without sensationalism (none)
    and I mean it literally.  This is probably the most important diary I have ever come across in the years that I have been reading Kos.

    Why?  There is nothing more critical to the health of a free society than a free press reporting truthfully the facts about our government and its representatives.   But it's clear now that on a grand scale the Washington press are lying to us.  The walls have fallen down on the cage that keeps the tigers of power from eating us all alive.

    Shame on the men and women whose job in the deepest sense is to protect their fellow Americans from tyranny.  Shame on them for the Faustian bargains they've made in which they sold their souls and our freedoms for a leg up in their careers.


  •  Thanks, Armando (none)
    But I don't think you have egg on your face, however much you were betrayed. You may have been wrong, but we all get some things wrong from time to time.

    However, like the hawks vs. not-hawks debate on Iraq, I think that those of us who were right from the beginning deserve a little more credibility than we were given before. It may not seem like much of an issue, really, but the Republicans and their whores in the press get far more benefit of the doubt from many leftish bloggers/pundits than they deserve, given their habitual malfeasance. (Call it Kevin Drum Disease if you want.) Until a consensus develops that bad actors on the right are never to be trusted -- EVER -- then I'm afraid we'll still not be facing the reality of the situation as we should.

    "Who do you have to blow to get a president impeached around here?"

    by chris on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:17:03 PM PDT

  •  I love to say I told you so, but I did (none)
    I wrote that the procedural liberals were, once again, suckering themselves:

    In concrete terms a defense of Judith Miller is not a defense of a noble principle, it is a defense of a powerful, well connected, dishonest propagandist against one tiny corner of a governmental system not controlled by her allies.

  •  Pathetic (none)
    This is why the NYT articles and especially the one by Miller, are so pathetic. Everybody already knows what happened and here they are writing articles that still don't reflect the truth.

    Miller is especially pathetic.

    The people mentioned in this entry apart from Pincus, obviously decided to not reveal anything in order to maintain their access. By doing so they kept on perpetuating lies and possibly criminal acts.
    They've been doing this sort of thing for about 4 years now and were at their worst with the whole Iraq mess. They were used by the gvt and they didn't mind it much if at all.

  •  Arianna on CNN this morning (none)
    made a big plug for Keith Olbermann and MSNBC at the end of her interview.  I thought the CNN people were about to explode.  Serves them right to be publicly humiliated on their own program for their failures to report properly and do due diligence.  Way to go Arianna.

    "My job is to protect the American people." George W. Bush. Did he?

    by PAprogressive on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 03:39:48 PM PDT

  •  wife is fair game (none)
    "Chris Matthews lied to his audience by pretending he did not know this. He let BushCo lie and enjoyed it. After his sanctimony about Clinton's sex lies, what more do we need to know about the disgrace that is Tweety.
    Andrea Mitchell actually is a veteran television reporter, but she has this little conflict problem, she is married to Alan Greenspan. But she knew BushCo was lying and said nothing. Except pretend she was not involved."

    small correction...  not in their defense, because they have not followed through...  but initially Mitchell and Matthews  were on the right track
    After Novak's column, the Bush administration appears to have intensified its campaign to discredit Wilson. On July 20, 2003, NBC's correspondent Andrea Mitchell told Wilson that "senior White House sources" had called her to stress "the real story here is not the 16 words ... but Wilson and his wife," according to Wilson's memoir.
    The next day, Wilson said he was told by MSNBC's Chris  Matthews that "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says and I quote, `Wilson's wife is fair game.' I will confirm that if asked."

    njr:  I watched that Matthews interview of Joe Wilson and have often wondered why Matthews failed to follow through

  •  Hypocrites (none)
    This has really exposed the hypocricy of the whole Sally Quinn/David Broder/Chris Matthews Special Class in Washington. These people were full of outrage about a president lying about his sex life and yet they can't find any outrage about a president whose lies have led to the deaths of tens of thousands. It just proves how phony their 1998 moralizing and outrage was.
  •  Did the Times have a secret arrangement with WHIG? (none)
    That would explain why Miller had a secret clearance, and why the bosses were so reluctant to rein her in, and continue to defend her even today! That would also make the Time arrangement a bigger story than Miller....
  •  Dissent (none)
    I think it's important that this discussion is taking place, but it also gets on my nerves. To let you know where I'm coming from: I think Bush and Cheney should be impeached and possibly jailed for lying to our country about the invasion of Iraq. I think Rove and Libby should probably be thrown into their too. I believe it is a good thing that the American people are beginning to question Bush and the Right Wing Elite.

    I don't think it's a good thing that the only stuff I ever read about on Daily Kos about the Iraq war is simply dissent and complaints. I find that unproductive for everyone. I believe that a democratic republic is better than a dictatorship. And even if we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons and even if the elections and the drawing of the Constitution are incredibly flawed, we need to be positive about some of this--first, to stay  relevant and more important to stay true to what we believe.

    Staying relevant: while Right Wing polls are sinking fast, Democratic polls aren't raising very quickly. This is because of a basic rule in improv: a scene doesn't work if you only say "no." You need to learn how to say "yes" in order to be engaged. And frankly, while Daily Kos is on top of the news and does an admirable job of reporting the flaws going on in Iraq and the horrendous tragedies, all they do is that. And all that is negative. Dissent is important--but it does not provide a beacon of light that gets a nation through a hard time--and Iraq is going through a hard time. And it's more important that they have a constitution and an election however flawed they may be, then a dictatorship or a country that is torn into civil war. They are in a state of emergency--they don't have the luxury that we do to demand perfect elections. It's progress, remember. It took this country until 1964 to even apply the basic principles of its constitution written in 1776. And things take time.

    Now granted, the Bush administration is incompetent and has brought much "badness" to Iraq. And yes, I'm angry that the media failed to report how dismal of a job it has done and how they lied. And while I'm happy that sites like Daily Kos do a good job of reporting it, I'm frustrated that such bright minds only focus on the "saying no part" and seem to not even care "to say yes." In doing so, the American people will probably not get behind what we stand for because we are not showing them what we stand for. We are only showing them what we stand against.

    So Armando, keep on criticizing and questioning, but for goodness sake: mix some vision and inspiration into the whole thing. Something positive. Something beautiful. Something accurate.  Let's put ourideas for how we would like to see Iraq go. And if we don't have any ideas, then we gotta get some. And if we don't care to come up with any ideas, then frankly, we have sold progressive ideals down the river to pettiness paritisan squabbling. We need to rich across the table here with a plan for Iraq that is more sophisticated than "withdrawal the troops." I know I stand for freedom and democracy and while I'm angry about Iraq, now that Hussein is overthrown and people are giving a go at something, I want to get in on this and help provide insight rather than just stand on the sidelines yelling. I want to help coach the team, not be a drunk on the bleachers who gets kicked out of the stadium.

    There is too much at stake here for so many people -- DailyKos, please keep up the dissent, but also, please start writing things on Iraq that are more proactive. Iraq needs it.

  •  Protest Miller Award in Las Vegas Tuesday !! (none)
    Please read and recommend this diary.

    Society of Professional Journalists to present Miller with award on Tuesday in Las Vegas.

    KOSSACKs we can make a difference on this. Please write the SPJ here.

    Based in Indianaolis, Indiana here are all the major members of the SPJ organiztion.

    Progressives - stay UNDECIDED on 2008

    by AustinSF on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 05:23:07 PM PDT

  •  Bringing the Whole House Down (none)
    When George W. Bush ran in 2000, he grabbed the Washington press corps and the Democratic Party be their frame and shook the hell out of them. And they broke. None of them will ever be the same.
  •  the repulsive tweety (none)
    signed off from his crappy sunday show today quoting murrow:"good night and good luck." this idiot, tweety, actually thinks he himself has integrity.
  •  And Novak? (none)
    and all of us who bothered to defend Miller's refusal to reveal her source on journalistic grounds. We are covered with egg today.

    Without including your defense of Robert Novak in your mea culpa, it'll be somewhat difficult to accept your apology.

  •  Dummycrats & Cheney (none)
    My question is why did Kerry allow cheney who refused to serve his country crap all over him?
    Why didn't Kerry & Edwards keep harping that Cheney even after Saddam committed his atrocities armed him and also armed Osama?
    Why didn't they keep harping that Cheney should be in jail as a traitor for doing business with the enemy, Iran?
    You don't need a self serving press when you have people like the candidates the Democrats have to ruin the country.
  •  Somerby (none)
    I love that you are flinging rocks at the media, Armando.
    But I have to wag my finger at your mention of "Somerby" without really giving him his due or even a link to his site.

    Folks, the man in question is the incomparable Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler who has been fighting a very lonely fight against the pack-driven, pampered Washington press corps.  If you think the press is complicit in the march to war in Iraq, then have a read in Somerby's archives to see just how they delivered the election to Bush in 2000 by waging their War on Gore.

    (PS did Andrea Mitchell ever correct her sniffy reporting on the items the Clintons "stole" from the White House?  Not that I have ever seen.)

    "Pro-life" really means "pro-criminalization"

    by Radiowalla on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 09:01:33 PM PDT

  •  As I said a long time ago, once or thrice (none)
    this was not a question of protecting the first amendment right for/of a free press, but rather a question of whether an administration can put out info which implicates a national (security) interest and hide behind an ellicited promise of secrecy from the diseminator of the info. It is not a free press responsibility to act as mouth organs for the rulers. Therefor, neither the source nor the press are entitled to protections justly granted to the media.

    Here the pundits/reporters (save Pincus) were acting as shills using "press releases" rather than acting for the "public's right to know" which should be protected.

    Thus, all should have testified from the get go.

    I got no response. I probably didn't express myself as well as the above.

    Now that this incredible, bizarre, punch and judy show has been revealing itself, words flail and fail. I agree with all that's been said about the oh so cute judy. She is disgusting. And the NYTimes is reprehensible. I wish I subscribed so that I could quit over their behavior.

    Thank you, Armando for your intelligent wrap up. It is what the NYT should have done. You always come through for us.


    The critical Office is Secretary of State; they run the elections. Let's find superb candidates ! Sam

    by samddobermann on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 02:48:22 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site